Pakistan's army said essential services were being restored to the city.

The International Red Cross said it was "gravely concerned" by the humanitarian situation in Swat.

Water and electricity were not available, there was no fuel for generators, most medical facilities had stopped operating and food was scarce, it said.

The fighting has reduced large parts of Mingora to rubble

"The people of Swat need greater humanitarian protection and assistance immediately," said Pascal Cuttat, head of the organisation's delegation in Pakistan.

Fawad Hussein, of the United Nations office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs, said:

"Since there is no electricity supply, the wells are not working. People are forced to use alternative water sources, which is causing water-borne diseases. There is no electricity in any of the health facilities."

Some 2.5 million people have fled their homes since military operations began in Swat more than a month ago.

Methodist Fool Says Jews Are Too Paranoid To Self-Govern

The Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, a denomination that is considering divesting from Caterpillar in protest of Israeli policies at its upcoming General Conference, has published a “Mission Study” by Rev. Stephen Goldstein, an ordained Methodist Minister who serves as Assistant General Secretary for the Mission Personnel Program Unit of the General Board of Global Ministries.

Rev. Goldstein portrays the Jewish people as too paranoid, and psychologically scarred to be trusted with self-determination. Accompanying this “Mission Study” is an equally distorted “Study Guide” prepared by Rev. Sandra Olewine which encourages people to embrace an anti-Israel narrative through a process of dialogue, meditation, and worship. (For length considerations, this analysis will limit itself to the text prepared by Rev. Goldstein.)

The main thesis of Rev. Goldstein’s blurry, inaccurate and one-sided hagiographic treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Israelis are too obsessed with the Holocaust to affirm the humanity of the Palestinians and too crippled by their history of suffering to take the risks needed to make peace. In his text, Rev. Goldstein, a Jewish convert to the United Methodist Church, portrays Israel as exhibiting the same characteristics of Jewish life and Judaism that he found repellent and dissatisfying as a youth while growing up in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

The Mission Study also systematically suppresses and omits any information that would undercut his unstintingly negative portrayal of Israel. In particular, he downplays the 60-year history of Arab violence against Israel, fails to credit Israeli efforts to negotiate an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, downplays the violent aftermaths of the Camp David and Taba negotiations of 2000-2001 and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. He also ignores persistent expressions of hostility toward Jews and Israel in state-controlled mass media throughout the Middle East. All these failings serve to buttress Rev. Goldstein’s efforts to portray Israel’s use of force as a belated, psychotic and hysterical response to the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany in the 20th Century rather than a response to the attacks Israel currently faces and has faced since its founding in 1948.

Ultimately, Rev. Goldstein’s strategy is to offer a distorted narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict replete with glaring omissions. He then encourages his readers to assess and evaluate Israel’s behavior using the incomplete and distorted narrative he offers. The goal of this text is not to promote a just assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but to generate support for divestment at its upcoming General Assembly.

Holocaust Consciousness

In Rev. Goldstein’s text, Israeli attitudes toward its neighbors are not a response to the repeated multi-army attacks against Israel during its 60-year history. Nor are Israel’s attitudes toward Palestinians a response to the spate of suicide attacks that took place during the Second Intifada. And they are not a consequence of the threats it currently faces from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that engage in attacks on Israeli civilians and which have on numerous occasions called for Israel’s destruction.

In Rev. Goldstein’s treatment, Israel is responding to the destruction of European Jewry at the hands of the Nazis in the 1940s. The trauma over this event has damaged the Israelis to the point that they are unable to make peace with their Arab neighbors, Rev. Goldstein asserts. This thesis outlined on pages 100-103 of the mission study in which he writes:

The early Zionists had intended Israel to be a safe haven for persecuted Jews, yet ironically Israel had come into existence without being able to save the dead millions. To this day there is a latent hysteria in Israel life that springs directly from this source. It explains the paranoiac sense of isolation that has been a main characteristic of the Israeli temper since 1948. Generations of Israelis have been brought up on this grim tenet: Jews were singled out to die not because of their religion or because of what they did; but simply because they were there, they existed. The message has been instilled in them for years and with far-reaching political, cultural and religious consequences.

And it has been the single most significant factor in Israel’s unwillingness to trust their Arab neighbors or the Palestinians, whose land they have colonized, and who are being victimized on a daily basis.

Since 1948, the Holocaust and the fear of anti-Semitism have also created a consciousness that has contributed significantly to preventing Israelfrom making peace with its Arab neighbors.

On page 102, Rev. Goldstein writes, “Standing behind each Arab or Palestinian, Israelis tend to see SS men determined to push them once again into gas chambers or crematoria.” In his discussion of the Six Day War (discussed below), Rev. Goldstein portrays Israelis as suffering from a “psychosis” and as “hysterical.”

Ultimately, Rev. Goldstein portrays Israel as congenitally incapable of completing one of the most basic tasks required of any sovereign state – maintaining peaceful relations with its neighbors. He does not, however, fairly or accurately describe the obstacles Israel has faced in the pursuit of peace.

In Rev. Goldstein’s view, the failure to achieve an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is entirely a consequence of Jewish self-identity as expressed in Israel, and not the consequence of Arab behavior or attitudes toward Israel. While the Holocaust does play a significant role in Israeli and Jewish identity, to assert baldly that it “has been the single most significant factor in Israel’s unwillingness to trust their Arab neighbors or the Palestinians” is to ignore or downplay the more than 60-year history of violence against Jews and Israel in the Middle East.

Christian Complicity

Non-Jews and non-Israelis in the U.S. are also afflicted with Holocaust consciousness, Rev. Goldstein asserts. On page 102 he writes:

The burden of this Holocaust consciousness also prevents progressive US Christians from making the necessary connections that would lead to actively raising concern about the Israeli occupation of what is left of Palestinian Palestine.

On this score, Rev. Goldstein is wrong, and egregiously so. Nearly every mainline or progressive Protestant church in the U.S. has condemned Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while remaining virtually silent about Arab and Muslim culpability for the continued existence of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rev. Goldstein’s Mission Study is but one case in point.

For example, in 2004, the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a resolution stating the occupation was at the “root” of violence against innocents against both sides of the conflict. And in 2005, the General Synods of the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ passed resolutions asking Israel to take down the security barrierwithout asking the Palestinians to stop the terror attacks that prompted its construction. And later that year, the Evangelical Lutheran Church endorsed a “Peace Not Walls” publicity campaign that emphasizes the impact of the security barrier on the Palestinians and downplays the impact of Palestinian terrorism against Israel. And the Episcopal Church’s witness about the Arab-Israeli conflict has also been decidedly one-sided.

Instead of condemning the genocidal hostility expressed toward Jews by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, progressive mainline churches have obsessively condemned and attacked the very aspects of the Jewish state that prevent these groups from achieving their goal – Israel’s ability to procure and field military hardware, field an army, and construct a security barrier and attack those who would – and have – killed its citizens. While Israel’s use of force is clearly subject to moral judgment and criticism, a “just” assessment can only be achieved by an honest description and acknowledgement of the threats faced by Israel – an acknowledgment that progressive Christians have largely been unwilling to conduct.

This is not a new phenomenon. Self-proclaimed progressive Protestants have been a persistent source of anti-Zionist and in some instances, anti-Jewish rhetoric in the United States since the first half of the 20th century. They have remained so after the Holocaust.

Breathe

It is our duty as Patriots and Americans to question our government, to take them to task, to keep them in check.

It is our duty as Patriots and Americans to know the facts about what's going on with our government, what they're up to. Unfortunately, too many have abrogated that duty to the media. Bad idea. Big mistake.

It is our duty as Patriots and Americans to draw conclusions based on the facts, not distort or ignore facts to support our conclusions. And then question government about those conclusions.

Cyber Security Czar -- suddenly everything on the internet will be watched, shut down quickly if they detect the slightest inappropriate comment, deemed dangerous to national security.

Well, no, not exactly. It'a a proposal to increase security among government and businesses to prevent hackers, theft of information, disruption of communications. The idea is to coordinate efforts between gov't and the private sector.

Who among us didn't say this was needed under Bush? Or even further back? But now because it's Obuma it's suddenly a treacherous thing. We don't even know the details yet. So how can we draw that conclusion?

Does it bear watching? Bear discussion? Hell yes, absolutely, and as the details emerge THEN draw conclusions, question, oppose, resist if necessary.

Crushing Dissent -- Obuma is shutting down any dissent, not allowed to question The Stimuless, no more lobbyists, it's how Stalinism works.

Not quite. Read this at Little Green Footballs. It applies only to those seeking Stimuless funds, a protection against bribery or graft in getting a piece of a really large pie. As such not a bad idea. But it could, of course, elad elsewhere so again, watch it, talk abouti it, question and resist it BASED ON THE FACTS

Dealergate -- This one is looking to be as bad or worse than advertized. And needs more and more light thrown on it.

Preventive detentions -- What Obuma has said is probably no worse than what Bush has said but, as Pasto pointed out to me, we don't know his intent. So another one we need to push on, question, resist, get to the core of it.

A woman I worked for before I was "reorganized", one I think very highly of, was forced into resignation after 28 yrs. Not for job performance, hers was excellent, but at least in part because of old disagreements with a new boss.

I was absolutely livid. Furious and fuming. Ranting.

My friend said "Breathe, dude, breathe."

Obama is worse than anything we thought he would be. He and his policies and his entire administration require intense scrutiny. Know the facts, define the issue, talk about it, draw conclusions, question it, and if necessary scream about it, oppose it, resist it.

Laker-Blogging: Can Kobe Be Dennis Rodman?

I know this has nothing to do with the subject matter of IBA, but if Roger Simon can do it, then I can too.

Sadly, though I had never thought so before, I have become convinced that the Lakers are in real trouble. The popular wisdom is that the Cavs would have been the harder matchup. But, I've been thinking about this, and I have come to agree, in a limited way, with Charles Barkley, who last night predicted the Magic in Seven, that the Magic present an almost impossible matchup for the Lakers.

DWIGHT FREAKING HOWARD.

I've always thought of Howard as a mini-Shaq. But last night, Howard proved that he is not Mini-Shaq, but is instead, Shaquille O'Neal if Shaq could have actually applied himself to a weight-training program.

That is to say, Dwight Howard who stands 6-11, about 280, is smaller than Shaq, but he is as powerful, and far quicker than even Shaq in his hey-day.

The Lakers are, as I said, in real trouble.

The Lakers had people they could throw at Lebron. They could throw Kobe/Lamar/Sasha/Josh Powell/Luke Walton at Lebron. That's 25 fouls before anyone fouled out..

But, who do they have to throw at Dwight Howard?

Bynum who is picking up fouls at the rate of one per four minutes?

No friggin' way.

Gasol?!?!!?

In my opinion Gasol can NOT guard Dwight Howard.

Howard is just too good. He is a man who has now proven he can carry an entire team. He may have averaged only 20 points per game during the season, but he is capable of scoring at will. He scored 40 last night.

Howard is so freaking quick, and powerful. He's gonna make Bynum cry and snivel. And, he'll make Gasol start hyperventilating in Spanish, til he sounds like Ricky Ricardo having a temper tantrum cuz Lucy spent too much money.

But, I digress. I've been trying to figure out what the Lakers can do to stop Howard. Quick answer; Bynum has to stay out of foul trouble.

Basically, I think Jackson/Rambis have to tell Bynum to anchor himself outside the circle and the Lakers have to throw double teams, with a soft triple, on Howard everytime he posts up. The second he gets into the paint, the Lakers have to go hard triple on him. Once again, with Bynum anchored and not moving his feet. The other two Lakers have to be responsible for actually guarding Howard, because Bynum can not be trusted. Bynum has to function solely as a monolith between Howard and the basket.

The reason Bynum keeps getting into foul trouble is because he keeps moving his feet, even after the guy he's guarding commits to a path to the basket. And, half the time, Bynum follows the guy into the cirlce before he plants himself.

Bynum simply can not read commitment vs. fake.

That won't work a second against Howard, who as I noted, is as quick as Shaq in his hey-day.

And, this brings me to the point of this post. The secret weapon Phil Jackson could pull out.

The only guy who was ever able to guard Shaq was Dennis Rodman. Very counter-intuitive considering Rodman was 6-8, 230.

Kobe is about the same size as Rodman, and Kobe is as smart as Rodman (Did I hear someone say "Smarter"? NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE WORM). Rodman's talent was that he could get into Shaq's head, and he was strong for a relatively thin man.

Kobe could do this.

Kobe may have to guard Howard.

What Rodman did was get underneath Shaq, and unsettle him, throwing him off-balance, and which meant Shaq got pissed off.

But, you know what? Shaq was easy to piss off. I don't think Howard is as weak-minded as Shaq.

We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson pulls this out. He was the one who put Rodman on Shaq, wasn't he?

But, here's the rub, Howard is not typically a big scorer. He will have to be for the Magic to win. I think he will have to score 30-35 a game. If Howard does this, the Lakers lose.

The Dark Side of Dubai: Part 1

Dubai has been in the news for a long time now for various reasons. Many a times we hear about the “city with the tallest building in the world”. At times we hear things that tell us that there is a city in the Middle East that was built “unlike any other city in human history”. The tales are told of Dubai. Dubai is used as an example to be followed.

There is no doubt at all that Dubai has transformed itself into a 21st century city in no time. However, this transformation, though it looks amazing and awesome, does not feel that great when you look at the reality on ground and that’s what I want to emphasize with this post. But I don’t want to write about something that has already been covered in great detail and the writer has done a far better job than I am even capable of doing. So please read this very insightful article by The Independent’s writer Johann Hari (it is, of course, illegal to read or publish either this article or Johann Hari’s name in the UAE).

Along with this article I also want to share a little story of my own just to add more weight to the above mentioned beautifully written article:

About a couple of weeks ago I was having dinner at the mall and I noticed the guys who clean up the trays in the food court. After I finished my dinner I went up to one of the guys and asked him how he was doing. He looked a little confused like, “why the crap is this guy talking to me?” I didn’t even wait for his answer and I asked, “How much do you earn every month?” He told me he earned 800 AED ($217) a month. As the conversation went on he further told me that he was from Bangladesh and he was only able to talk to his family once or twice every 2 months as he didn’t have enough money to buy phone credit. I pulled out 25 AED ($6.8) and told him, “here, take this and call your family tonight.” The guy almost broke in tears while looking at me in disbelief. To me that amount of money didn’t really mean much but it seemed that to him it was something really huge. After he took the money all he could manage to say was “thank you sir.” I said, “Don’t worry about it” and I walked away.

That’s just a little story of how only about $7 can do so much for someone here. This guy, who works as a cleaner at the food court of a mall, actually earns more than an average construction worker whose wage is about 650 AED ($176) a month. These are the people who make up a huge chunk of the population of Dubai and these are the people you never hear about when you hear about Dubai.

I will soon write part 2 of this post with another story that reveals more about the UAE.

For several decades, most of the ingenuity that liberal academics have invested in First Amendment analysis has aimed to justify limiting the core activity that the amendment was written to protect -- political speech. These analyses treat free speech as not an inherent good but as a merely instrumental good, something justified by serving other ends -- therefore something to be balanced against, and abridged to advance, other goods.

The good for which Zephyr Teachout would regulate speech is combating corruption, which, as she understands it, encompasses most of contemporary politics. A visiting law professor at Duke, writing in the Cornell Law Review ("The Anti-Corruption Principle"), she makes an astonishingly far-reaching argument for emancipating government from First Amendment restrictions on its powers to regulate political speech -- speech about the government's composition and conduct.

Hitherto, most arguments for such emancipation -- for McCain-Feingold and other measures regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech -- have rested on the supposed need to curb corruption or the "appearance" thereof, with corruption understood as quid pro quo transactions, political favors exchanged for financial favors. But bribery has long been criminalized, and courts are wary about allowing the criminalizing of the constant transactions of mutual support between politicians and factions.

Teachout's capacious definition of corruption includes even an unseemly "attitude" of citizens as well as officeholders "toward public service." She says that the Framers thought limiting corruption was their "primary task." Therefore the "anti-corruption principle" should have "as much weight" as the First Amendment, giving Congress considerable "leeway" to regulate the political "process," which is mostly speech. What Teachout disparagingly calls "the apotheosis of speech" and "the sanctified meme of 'free speech' " is, she says, "a serious problem" requiring a rethinking of "the proper relationship of speech to self-serving public actors."

She advocates, as proponents of an elastic Constitution often do, an "evolving standard," this time a standard about how we define, measure and condemn "self-serving" behavior, aka corruption. This standard might license Congress to restrict speech in order to combat:

"Unequal access" to the political process; "unfair deployment of wealth"; "undue influence" by this or that group; speech that is "distorting" or lacks "proportionality" or results in "drowned voices" or a "passive" or "dispirited" public or that causes a "loss of political integrity" or creates "moral failings for members of Congress." Such speech might not be constitutionally protected if we properly "refine the meaning of the privilege of political speech."

So, political speech is not a right but a privilege, something granted by government when government deems it consistent with what Teachout calls the "equally important" anti-corruption principle. Imagine the "self-serving" uses incumbent legislators might have for the terms in the paragraph above as reasons for restricting political speech.

The word "corruption" or some permutation of it occurs 58 times in the 85 essays that are the Federalist Papers. James Madison wrote not only many of the papers but also this: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." He saw no conflict between that proscription and efforts to minimize corruption. He and other Framers considered corruption a vice requiring constant vigilance precisely because it is inextricably entwined with a virtue, America's vast scope -- constitutionally protected scope -- for self-interested behavior, including political speech.

Congressional Democrats want to kill a small voucher program that gave some mostly poor and minority students alternatives to the District of Columbia's failing public schools, and the Obama administration spent additional billions to avoid a declaration of bankruptcy by General Motors. Some people think both decisions represented disinterested assessments of the public good. Others think the decisions represented obeisance by Democrats to the teachers and autoworkers unions, respectively. If the decisions were such obeisance, they were, by Teachout's standards, corrupt.

If corruption is as ubiquitous as Teachout's standard ("self-serving" behavior) says, then reasons for restricting political speech also are ubiquitous. Under today's regulatory and redistributionist government, which is busily allocating wealth and opportunity, politics frequently "appears" to many people "self-serving." It will not, however, be prettified by regulating speech.

If Teachout considers the politics produced by today's gargantuan government unlovely, she should not try to further enlarge the government by empowering it to comprehensively regulate speech about government. Instead, she should join the movement to restrain government's incessant regulating and redistributing transactions on behalf of myriad factions -- transactions that create more and more clamorous factions. The movement is called conservatism.

If political speech becomes a privilege, we are doomed!

ADDENDUM: I just located the following comment to this post here at IBA.

Anonymous said...

The internet czar will be shutting sites like this down within 18 months, I would guess. Maybe sooner??

Then they will take your guns and no one will be around to report on it, so no one will know.

No Guns for Negroes

Why is a gangbanger with an illegally owned firearm protected by the right to defend himself but those who follow the gun laws can't protect themselves if they live in a victim disarmament zone (gun free zone to you gun fearing weenies)?

". . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period.

Free men own guns. Slaves don't. To enslave a nation, disarm the population.

Pay real close attention at 5:30 -5:45 in the first video. If you're not already aware of this it will shock you (and prove you haven't been reading my Second Amendment posts)

Wild Wood (Portishead and Paul Weller Mix)

I could write an entire series of blogs about how great Paul Weller is, and how under-rated he is in the UK (despite the fact that he recently won the Lifetime Achievement award at the Brit Awards). But you’d probably get bored. So I won’t. Suffice to say that he has done more in his 30-year odd career than pretty much any other British artist, and enjoyed more sustained success than anyone other than a few select groups or singers to boot. The quality of his work has been more sustained than David Bowie, he’s never given into corporate sponsorship like the Rolling Stones and he still looks pretty f***ing cool as he pushes 50.

Part of my love for Paul Weller’s work has been his willingness to experiment with other genres. After splitting up The Jam, the most successful of the bands that followed punk, at the height of their popularity he moved into jazz-lite territory with The Style Council. They were eventually dropped by their record label for recording a house album - in 1989. And since then he has experimented with soul, rock, acoustic and cover albums and lots of stuff in between.

This particular collaboration came to me by chance in-so-much as I hadn’t planned on buying anything by Paul Weller that week back in 1994 but it just so happened that the NME were kind enough to put a 7″ single on their cover which had two remixed Paul Weller songs on it (and one live one), one of which was this amazing remix of Wild Wood by Portishead, the band who would win the Mercury Music Prize the next year for their debut album Dummy (thanks to All Mod Cons for finding this ‘video’ of it).

The original track was from Weller’s most recent album, also called Wild Wood, which detailed his recent return to his Surrey roots and his renewed love for the area. With little more than his fantastic voice and some strumming of his acoustic guitar, the song builds slowly to a climax that never truly comes and is all the more satisfying for it.

By comparison, this remix of Wild Wood includes some typical Portishead style clashing drums and some other lovely effects. It has to have been the best 70p I ever spent (the price of the NME back in those days) and I played it almost to destruction. Well, in fact I did play it to destruction. Somehow, after moving between houses whilst at University I took it out of its sleeve to find a large hunk missing out of the vinyl. Gutted? You bet.

Several years passed and for some reason I never threw it away. For some bizarre, almost masochistic, reason, I used to take it out of its sleeve every so often as if hoping that it would have magically mended. It hadn’t. But don’t worry - there is a happy ending.

One day God invented the internet, and not long after he invented eBay. Having dabbled with the auction site for things that I didn’t really need, it occurred to me to look for this masterful mix of Portishead’s trip-hop and Paul Weller’s acoustic majesty. And guess what? Well - you can see the picture at the top can’t you!

Athens: Muslims and Leftists Celebrate the Fall Of Constantinople and Protest Koran Insult At The Same Time

This story is just amazing. Leftists are helping Muslims protest the tearing up of a piece of paper with verses from the Krayon on it. This is called a "Koran insult". Additionally, for the Muslims, this demonstration also, as the story points out, just happens to coincide with the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire - AND THUS, IT IS A CELEBRATION OF THE HEIGHT OF THE DARK AGES - and as I said,

LEFTISTS ARE CELEBRATING RIGHT ALONG WITH THE MUSLIMS.

What a bunch of leftard freaks. Celebrating the very ideology which would kill them first, with all their gay rights, and their women's rights, and their licentiousness and bacchanalia.

More than 1,000 Muslim migrants and leftists demonstrated in Athens Friday over an alleged police insult to the Koran, a week after two similar protests degenerated into clashes with anti-riot police.

The protest was called by leftist and anti-racist groups after a police officer allegedly tore up some sheets of paper with extracts from the Muslim holy book belonging to an Iraqi migrant during an identity check last week.

"We want this officer put on trial, and we ask the government to protect our prayer sites in Athens," said Zuri, a Moroccan protester.

"But we intend to set a good example and refrain from violence, Islam is a religion of peace," he said.

Scores of police on foot and on motorbikes were mobilised to maintain order and keep the migrants who marched on parliament from coming into contact with a few dozen neo-Nazi militants staging a street gathering a few blocks away.

Greece's main Muslim and migrant organisations distanced themselves from the migrant demonstration, preferring to take judicial action instead.

"Our problems can be solved by dialogue, not demonstrations," said Ahmet Moavia, head of the Greek Migrants' Forum.

"The real agenda is migrants' rights in Greece which include issues of religion," he told AFP.

"Muslim Arabs will not participate because there is a political agenda which has nothing to do with Islam," said Naim El Gadour, chairman of the Muslim Union of Greece.

"We filed a complaint against the officer, we chose the path of justice and peace and we will adhere to it."

Rights groups report an increase in racist attacks on migrants in Athens in recent weeks. Last weekend, unknown assailants set fire to a basement flat housing a mosque and injured five men from Bangladeshsleeping inside.

More than a dozen migrants and police were injured last week in clashes that marred two days of Muslim rallies over the alleged insult to the Koran.

Scores of cars and a handful of shops had their windows smashed.

Police made 46 arrests at the time.

Muslim groups have demanded an apology over the incident which the government has so far failed to give. Calls to identify the officer who allegedly tore the Koranic verses have also been ignored.

Community elders also note that Greece has failed to honour years of pledges to build a mosque and a cemetery in Athens where over 100,000 Muslims live.

There are around one million migrants legally living in Greece, roughly nine percent of the country's population, most of them from neighbouring Albania.

Another 80,000-100,000 migrants are believed to be residing in the country illegally according to the interior ministry.

So, are we to believe the Muslims were not aware that their organized demonstration fell on the anniversary of the fall of Constantinople?

Sunday Infidel Meditation

“For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”

Matthew 13: 15-17.

Based on the passage above, St. Augustine argued that complacency (obsequium) in the face of evil is the greatest evil. It’s difficult to disagree with him. Since evil represents nothingness in traditional Christian theology, failure to do or say anything when faced with sin, injustice, or acts of inhumanity represents the most contemptible act of any believer.

Why then are Christian congregations not up in arms over the pronouncements of Barrack Hussein Obama and other elected officials that America is no longer a Christian nation; that Christians and Jews worship the same god as Muslims; that same sex marriage must be condoned; that gays are not perverts; that licentious conduct and speech must be tolerated; that speaking of sin represents a hate crime; and that the murder of millions of unborn babies is an essential element of American liberty?

The reason offered by namby-pamby mainline denominations, including purpose driven Baptists, is always the same. St. Paul, they maintain, instructs all believers to submit to worldly authority, even the authority of evil or unjust rulers (Romans 13: 1-5).

But scripture remains clear that Christians must reject authority and take decisive action in circumstances relating to matters of faith. Shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven, Peter and John where arrested for preaching the name of Jesus and taken before the religious rulers. They were commanded to stop preaching in the name of Jesus and to stop trying to convert people to him. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” Acts 4:19 & 20.

The decision was between obeying God or obeying man. Peter and John had received a clear and specific command from Jesus, “Go and preach the Gospel to all the world”. The religious leaders gave them a clear and specific command to not preach the gospel. The choice was clear, they had to obey God rather than man. So they continued to preach. The result was that they were persecuted, tossed into dungeons, and put to death.

This teaching is supported by the full weight of scriptural authority. Did Moses violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul’s troops? Did Daniel violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king’s law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work?

In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

When those in authority attempt to require us to violate God’s commandments (yes, even the teachings concerning homosexuality), our only choice is to rebel and to stand firm for truth and righteousness. But we must not forget that refusing to obey the human authority and to adher to the Word of God does not come with a guarantee that we will not suffer for our stance and rebellion. Daniel was thrown to the lions and God saved him, but thousands of early Christians were not saved from the lions. They suffered martyrdom for insisting on preaching the name of Jesus.

We make a grave mistake when we think that obeying God rather than men should result in things being wonderful for us. Often this is not the case. By decrying evil, you more likely than not will be criticized, condemned, sued (even in Canada), or tossed in a paddy wagon for taking part in a public demonstration. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 1 Peter 2:20.If you want to change the world and take part in the last crusade, please join me and my fellow crusaders at a gathering that will take place at Puritan Congregation Church in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on August 8 and 9.

Pastorius comment: To be fair, Barack Obama's Administration is not the first to claim that Jews and Christians worship the same God as Muslims.

And, it is not the Obama Administration which is leading the fight to legalize gay marriage. In fact, the Obama Administration is against gay marriage.

Other than that, I tend to agree with Dr. Williams. We can not allow our government to tell us evil is good, and good is evil.

If it is proven, for instance, that our government is shutting down auto dealerships which are profitable for themselves, and for the manufacturer as well, then we must rebel. If our government decides to begin teaching the tenets of Islam to our children when they go to school, then we must rebel.

As it says, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight." That means each of us must choose where the line is that we will not cross.

The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Infidel Babe Of The Week
Moran Atias - TYRANT

IBA Quote of the Week.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed — but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

****************

"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."~~~~~Bono~~~~~